Slashdot Mirror
Mexico Wants Payment For Aztec Images
innocent_white_lamb writes "Starbucks brought out a line of cups with prehistoric Aztec images on them. Now the government of Mexico wants them to pay for the use of the images. Does the copyright on an image last hundreds of years?"
Surely they could have included a picture of the offending cups...
This is Mexico though. They're not run like civilized countries in the rest of the world ... so if Starbucks wants to do business there, they'll have to play by the rules. And, knowing Mexico, Starbucks' problems can all go away if they grease the right palms.
You'll note he said "play by the rules", with no mention of the laws. Bring money.
...under the weight of their own stupidity.
It was once thought that 14 years was a reasonable amount of time to capitalize on a copyright. Now, distribution and capitalization happens much more quickly, and yet copyright duration has continued to get longer and longer.
IIRC certain countries or people demand that their "culture" must not be exploited without their consent. I.e. not without paying for it.
I don't think it's just "simple" copyright they're going to field, they're going to insist that the culture of a country belongs to that country and isn't just public property.
Which should be interesting if it sticks. Egypt demanding compensation for every mummy movie, Italy demanding compensation for every time someone does a gladiator movie, Russia demanding compensation for every dystopian totalitarian novel and Israel demanding compensation for every Bible.
I somehow almost wish they get away with it. It should be insanely hilarious.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
human culture, created by humans (music, art, pictures of mice) is all p0ned by corporations and their congress critters. google: corporate personhood. The congress critter you save may be your own.
The answer is . . . No?
If this is the case, then sweat damn are all the states of the old Confederacy gonna make some serious Union dollars.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
In most countries which have copyright laws it extends only 50 or so years after the author dies.
Not only that, but it's up to the copyright owner themselves to make the complaint. How on earth does a government "inherit" copyright just because the original owner was from their country? That's like the British government suing anyone who does things based on William Shakespeare because he was English.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The Boston Bruins are gonna have to accept a buy out by the Red Army in order to settle their debts.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Actually, the article clarifies that these images are from the pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan, which would make them at least 1,000 years old.
(or so I heard)
What...
That's crazy. I can sort of understand wanting compensation for something your government created, to recompense taxpayer expense... but to ask recompense for an artistic STYLE your nation was built upon the dead remains of is WAY beyond my usual expectations of baseless money-grabbing.
If there was a copyright on the creation, it has expired. By a few thousand years. There is certainly no derivative works clause you can pull out at this point.
Even if you want to stake some claim on government effort in excavation, the only efforts you can claim ownership of would be individual performances/creations you have based on the original works - anyone else can just base their works on the original and avoid any derivative claims.
Still, my guess is that this isn't really about making a serious claim - it's about getting settlements - about casting nets and seeing what comes back. The governmental version of SCO-style license trolling.
Ryan Fenton
Walt Disney would be proud.
And we will have the Sunny Aztec copyrith extension act. Now, copyright will last at least from 1923 until next decade. That is from when Disney and other media houses started recording movies and music. Today that means 100 years. In a billion years, copyight will have been extended to 1 billion and 100 years. If the mexicans want in on the game, they will have to pay some lawmaker.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
That's like the British government suing anyone who does things based on William Shakespeare because he was English.
Or for something even more absurd: the modern British government, which is descended from a system put in place by the Normans, suing someone who uses imagery from Beowulf.
Mexico is run by a culture and people primarily descended from the people who killed off the Aztecs. Yes, there are plenty of Indians in Mexico today, but they're pretty much at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The Mexican government is the heir of the Spanish Empire.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
... I'm not some fancy big shot lawyer. But ...
Why not? The copyright system seems borked beyond belief. If Disney can keep it on Mickey (*1928) and [insert studio name here] on [old movie/record/whatever here] or [dead person] retaining theirs via some company or whatever. So that stuff clearly gets extended beyond time.
That said, a country retaining C on a "long dead" culture from 500-700 years ago that just happened to live in the area? That seems to be stretching it. But if it is the case then whom do I talk to about getting some cash from the Minnesota Vikings?
not yet, but it will once Mickey is hundreds of years old
Is the Disney of the Aztec Empire still around?
The copyright, trademark, and patent insanity will only stop once everyone is negatively impacted. It's got to get (much) worse before it will get better.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
The real trouble happened when tried to put 2 Aztecs in 1 Cup. Associated a whole new twist to the taste of their coffee.
Mexico is a pretty poor country. I wouldn't object to there being some fund for use of these images for profit in foreign countries provided the money went into some cultural preservation purposes (for maintenance of the ruins or something).
I don't really see it as a copyright issue at all. I would have linked to have read more about the matter than the link above gave.
Starbuck's work is likely either a photograph, or a work derived
from a photograph. The photo is likely copyrighted, or restricted.
When you visit an architelogical site, your personal photos are
for personal use only -- not commercial reproduction accoring to
the law of Mexico. It's been this way for quite some time (70's?).
When you do apply for reproduction rights, it's usually limited
to specific publications with a nominal fee per object represented.
These laws were put in place quite early, perhaps before the 60's.
So, it's possible it's an artist's rendition (not derived from photo)
or it is based on a representation from before the antiquity laws
were passed -- however, unlikely. So, it's extremely possible that
copyright is the vehicle for enforcement.
FTA: "The government archaeological agency said Wednesday it will decide by next week whether Starbucks should pay any fees. "
Has anyone thought yet to ask where the images came from? It seems obvious to me that what could have happened was that Starbucks took photographs taken by the government archaeological society, which the society may have used for post-cards, t-shirts, or other tourism items and placed them on Starbucks mugs without paying fees to the Mexican government for those photographs.
Those photographs would then be copyright, just as any photograph would.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I don't think it's a copyright issue really.
The article was light on significant details. It looks as if these images are used effectively as trademarks in Mexico, used for purposes of tourism, or some such thing. This is obviously not a copyright issue.
Of course, the Mexican government is going to be sure and give that money to the indiginous tribes, the descendants of the original artists, right?
What's next? We're going to have to pay the Italians for using Roman letters and the Saudi's for using Arabic numbers? Ridiculous!
i'm putting a claim for copyright on the english alphabet...
so all you m'f'kers be ready for a visit from my lawyers...
Humm, let's see... What if Egypt (or Mexico) charges $1 for each image of a pyramid, then ...
All your one dollar bills are belong to us!
Computers obey me.
Damn, and I was trying to kludge up a car anaology. Hehe.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
I get what you mean, but I wouldn't have thought that drawing inspiration from somewhere requires paying the source.
;)
If so, I think Europe can sue Disney for most of their older movies, as well as for inspiring Sleeping Beauty's Castle...
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
Those were developed by the gods. And they are still around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, my mother is MacGregor, so if you are Campbell, I would like to have a word with you.
It is looney, that anybody thinks that the murders of a ppl should profit from them. I wonder if the Aztec gods can strike dead those that came up with that idea.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Considering that the swastika was from India, and then from Iran before that, I doubt that Germany can lay claim.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just pay the US royalties on blue jeans
and then they will try to claim royalties for anything that talks about December 21st, 2012.
New Economic Perspectives
Has anyone thought yet to ask where the images came from? It seems obvious to me that what could have happened was that Starbucks took photographs taken by the government archaeological society, which the society may have used for post-cards, t-shirts, or other tourism items and placed them on Starbucks mugs without paying fees to the Mexican government for those photographs.
I tried to search around the web a bit, but the only thing I found was this quote from the Washington Examiner
Mexico's government archaeological agency says the images of the Aztec calendar stone and the Pyramid of the Moon from the pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan are the intellectual property of the nation. The agency will decide how much Starbucks should pay.
Which seems to imply, to my mind, that this isn't the matter of specific photographs being copied, but rather that the Mexican government considers any photographs of these artefacts/sites to be the intellectual property of Mexico.
That being said I have yet to find any site or news provider, that referees to this case in more detail; so I shall hold my judgement until then.
The Long Now Foundation
Most people estimate Mexico's population to be at least 60% mestizo (mixed blood indigenous + European). Wikipedia puts it at 60%-80%. Indigenous people make up ~15%, with the remainder European / Asian / African. Since the Mexican census doesn't count ethnicity, no one knows for sure just how many are mestizo; but either way it's not correct that the culture or government is 'European' run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico
This means that actually the majority of people in Mexico have lineage that married/raped the indigenous population (depending on who you talk to).
Also, the majority of "pure" Europeans living in Mexico arrived after the Spanish occupation ended (can't find citation for that at the moment, sorry).
I know it's 'cool' to rag on Mexico, but at least pick something accurate (there's a lot to choose from).
I think trademark would be more fitting intellectual property here.
And can a government assert trademark rights over things it didn't create? Can a government assert trademark rights over things that are marks of a people that existed prior to them? Can a government assert trademarks at all?
This just sound like more government corruption to me.
I'm descended from lowlanders as well. However, we're the only lowland clan, officially registered with the Lord Lyon King of Arms. This has nothing to do with the story mind you. I'm still waiting to find out the exact nature of the alleged copyright violations before I make any comments on that.
Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
This is the USA though. They're not run like civilized countries in the rest of the world ... so if Starbucks wants to do business there, they'll have to play by the rules. And, knowing USA, Starbucks' problems can all go away if they grease the right palms.
What country can this not apply to?
signature is pants
Oh boy! You think that ancient painting is far away of any kind of copyright protection? Think twice... Unfortunately this is Mexico you're talking about. Just as reference. Mexico could be one of the most powerful countries in the world if we knew what happens with the resources XP... (Just take a look on the payroll of politics and government offices). National corruption is just a hobby around here; a nice challenge for the first quarter of this year could be to blackmail an international company...and why not Starbucks? I fell shame and sadness looking news like this...
You don't think the RIAA is taking notes? I fully expect the massacre of virgins to begin next week.
(Run, Slashdotters, run!)
Mexican government
To whom it may concern:
Fuck off.
Sincerely,
Starbucks
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
"if they grease the right palms"
Clearly, he meant something else.
The minivan. I had the idea when I was a mere teenager back in the 60's.
What's the problem here, Mexico not making enough money off of the drug lords or is the Obama mentality migrating south? If Mexico really wants payment for those images, they have a lot more people to go after than just Starbucks. A quick google search for Aztec images will net you quite a few different websites that use those images not only for show, but to make a profit.
This is contemplated in the federal law about Monuments and Archeological, artistics, and historic sites. It is not exactly a question of copyright, but those images are considered "property of the nation".
Ussually the fees are not very high, but depends on the use of the images. Since this was part of a comercial product, the INAH has to autorize its use, and charge a fee, used for conservation of the monuments. The problem is that the design company that sold the images to starbuck should have request permision to the INAH first. There are no penalties involved.
The permisions can be requested here:
http://www.cofemer.gob.mx/BuscadorTramites/BuscadorGeneralHomoclave.asp?SIGLASDEPENDENCIA=INAH&accion=Buscando
If you took a photograph nad use it for personal or divulgation, there is no problem, but if you used them for a comercial purpose you need permision.
http://dti.inah.gob.mx/
The RIAA's behavior demonstrates that copyright has nothing to do with remunerating the original authors.
I hate printers.
However, most experts consider these numbers to be overstated. For example, the sheer logistics associated with sacrificing 84,000 victims would be overwhelming, mos historia asume the aztec put a few extra zeroes as propaganda...
the arqueological excavation have revelead a few hundred sacrifices, far from the thousands claimed...
by comparition, in Auswtiz with their four gass chambers wrking 24 a day, they could execute about 4,000 prisioners a day...
The Tlaxcaltecas also killed and sacrifice Aztecs... Theyre power was very similar, it required only a small force to push de balance... that force was Cortez.
At the end, germs killed much more aztecs and Tlaxcaltecas than the war.
Trivia. The aztecs.... called themsleves meshicas... their gods had forbiten to call themselves aztecs...
For using the Corinth style capitals and columns in its buildings ...
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
if you go to a museum, some make a small charge for taking photographs.... and some do not allow any photograhs withuth permition of the owners... is not very different...
sorry.. forgot... the Tlaxcalans were nahuatl...
It's almost hilarious that a government that existed after the Aztecs wants money for the images of their predecessors... Am I missing something here? Or am I laughing by myself?
The game.
The permision is not very dificult, and is only required for comercial proyects:
http://www.cofemertramites.gob.mx/intranet/co_dialog_PublishedTramite.asp?coNodes=1190358&num_modalidad=3
In the link there is the e-mail of the people in charge of this.
Don't forget that even those that claim European ancestry have always done so more from a cultural standpoint than genetic. And with Mexico's revolutions and social change since colonial times the aristocracy has been replaced more than a few times in most areas. If you compare most "white" Mexicans with Iberians you can see the differences pretty clearly.
Has anyone thought yet to ask where the images came from? It seems obvious to me that what could have happened was that Starbucks took photographs taken by the government archaeological society, which the society may have used for post-cards, t-shirts, or other tourism items and placed them on Starbucks mugs without paying fees to the Mexican government for those photographs.
What you have here is an evil coffee company that underpays its workers vs a corrupt government that is gold digging instead of promoting it's culture for tourism etc, and you're talking rubbish about new ways to involve copyright?
The more I see of copyright law the more I'm convinced it can't be fixed. It has gotten so far out of hand that it needs to be abolished and we need to start again. People have become so greedy that they use copyright law to prevent instead of promote their products then wonder why they fail. Like those stupid warnings on DVDs that have made a movie night at a school or university illegal.
I would like to submit to you that since every product ever made has a manufacturer that the only way to get an image that doesn't violate someone else's copyright is to go out into the wilderness (but make sure it's public land and that the government doesn't want a cut).
I challenge you to come up with one object that you can sharp in focus well exposed photograph in your immediate surroundigns where some bozo can't claim you violated their copyright and demand that you pay them. At the same time good luck getting their permission even if you are willing to pay. The current law is just ridiculous.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
In most countries which have copyright laws it extends only 50 or so years after the author dies.
Perhaps that's the point. No one has produced the Aztec death certificate of the original artist so he/she might still be alive :-)
The fee is required for the comercial use of any building of historical artifacts that falls under the juridiction of the Archeological and historical agency of the goverment.
http://dti.inah.gob.mx/
In this case, some of the images were from the monument to the independence and the "Palacio de bellas artes" that were built around 1910.
Even though we don't have a compete lock on stupid, but a lot of our stupid stuff gets copied all over the world. Rap music, gang signs and baggy hip-hop fashions! World, you own us big time for our stupid!
Why is Snark Required?
Mainly.... National Geographic, The history channel, and of course... the catholic church...
you can think more in ther line of trademark... the fee is required to control and conservation the use of historical monuments...
Actually, IIRC the Arabic number system had it's origin in India. There was an excellent BBC program on the history of mathematics which showed some early examples.
National iconography should be protected from redefinition, abuse and from corporate marketing departments.
This being said, I am still waiting when I can publish my, adult only, Mickey Mouse movie : "On Santa's knees".
They should have known... after all, Starbucks payed to the agency...that payment should have included the fee for the commercial use of the images...
Could it be on Slashdot? Yeah, that's the ticket, Egypt tried to copyright the pyramids and the sphinx no less. I haven't heard anything else about it, but I'm pretty sure that answer was "how about no".
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
i read somwhere that that the monastery owner of the oldest surviving coyp of the bible ( http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ ) is asking for a fee...
Here you go.
http://images.google.com.hk/images?q=de_aztec&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Starbucks has to pay the astronomical amount of $1,477.07 to $2,954.50 mexican pesos.. (about 200 us dolar) per image...
I think that amount can be recolected by a single starbuck in a couple of hours...
Of course starbuck are willing to pay, even if they not use the images.. And probably they would change the agency that sold them the images.
but the real problems seems that people in the INAH were not willing to grant use of the images..., and the news were exagerated by some nationalist characters...
But i think a Starbuck mug which you ahve to pay, does not cover "fair use"...
Currently i am making a documentary , and i already have asked permision. It is fairly cheap.. but needs some patience...
How many New Yorkers does it take to screw in a light bulb! NONE, F%&K YOU!
actually it would be cheaper to pay the fee.. it goes about 200 US per image....
It won't be funny for customers when they'll have to seek for toilet after every coffee
Copyright gets extended every time it's about to hit the expiration limit so yes, copyright will last hundreds of years a century from now.
And then from virtually every ancient culture before that.. The swastika is a basic geometric pattern that's been on cave walls since prehistoric man learned to scratch.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Not very different no, but different enough. In museums it makes sense as taking a picture means you don't buy a postcard on the way out. I havn't seen the offending article (presumably for said copyright reasons) but I would assume that these are 2d recreations of the art itself rather than photographs of the art in their original form. Nothing has been taken from the Mexican government. Of course in Mexico, the government sets the laws so regardless of how stupid it is it can be the law (as in any country) so if starbuks want to do business in Mexico, they must abide by Mexican law, however stupid or immoral. I see no reason why the current Mexican government can have the copyright on something created by members of what is essentially a different country from a different civilization which was destroyed by the Spanish. if they do have it, it is only because they stole it.
Surely it would have been good marketing for Starbucks to have dropped Mexico a load of money for the upkeep of these historic sites.
It seems that they did approach the Mexicans over the rights to use the images but then went ahead with the project before getting a reply.
Pieces of artwork are covered under different laws to basic copyright. eg. Try selling copies of the Mona Lisa without The Louvre getting on your case about it.
That's like the British government suing anyone who does things based on William Shakespeare because he was English.
Please stop giving them ideas, they are bad enough already.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
The fee is actually for actually take the photograph of historical monuments, and protect its use.
Al historical an archeological sites are considered "property of the nation".
We have seen so many treasure stolen that we are trying to protect what it left.
And is actually low. For a comercial proyect like the coffe mugs, i would go about 250 $ per image. It is nothing close to what it would be charged if actually were copyright.
Civilized countries invade other countries based on blatant lies, kill thousands of people, imprison people without trial in places that they acquired by force from weaker countries.
Shall I continue?
Nope, unnecessary.
I have many other examples of countries that call themselves "civilized" who are partners of Mexico in the G20 or the OECD, but it would be as pointless as not considering Mexico a civilized place (as a matter of fact there is no country that is not civilized strictly speaking, since all human groups produce a civilization of some kind or another).
Oh wait, the PP was an AC's. Never mind.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Mexico is run by the descendants of both the people that killed the natives and the natives.
Your assertion that "The Mexican government is the heir of the Spanish Empire" is so monumentally ignorant that does not deserve any further comment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Naa, they are just making a joke, to make USA see how idiot it is to have patents like multitouch, double-click, drag and drop, etc ...
its a valid copyright/patent issue.
if copyright lobby can extend the copyright period by 90 years, why a government shouldnt be able to extend any copyright 500 years ?
Read radical news here
"suing someone who uses imagery from Beowulf."
Hush!
Lawyers read Slashdot too!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
http://www.cnmh.inah.gob.mx/ponencias/630.html
it is the "La Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos"
(federal law for monuments and archeological , artistics and historic sites)
It has the purpose of protect the national heritage. And what it is asking is a fee for taking the photographs for comercial use, stating what use would you give to it. It is no very high, and nowhere it goe to the amount if it were a copyright...
While Starbucks claimed the INAH had not gave them permision, i guess they did not made the correct way. the permision should not take more than five days. And if should cost form 100 to 250$ per image (for comercial use). For private of fair use, you do not need to pay.
probalby we already have developed a... darwinian adaptation...
The wonderful thing about photographs is that when you photograph an object the owner of that object still has it.
So your "We have seen so many treasure stolen that we are trying to protect what it left." is little more than thinly strained bullshit.
they're not taking anything at all.
With this, they will have the right to put "autorized by the INAH" and a serial number.
This woul allow them to charge more for the mugs, and the fee would hardly impact in the cost
UNfortunatelly the news about thisproblem are mainly gibberish...
Acording to the aztec, their Tlatoani Ahuizotl, persoally killed 84,400 prisioners in four days using a stone knife...
For copyright violations? Harsh...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Acording to the aztec, their Tlatoani Ahuizotl, persoally killed 84,400 prisioners in four days using a stone knife...
That means he would have killed prisoner every 4 seconds for four days, non-stop. I go out on a limb and say that it's pretty safe to assume that the number is a bit on the high side.
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
Actually... this is exactly the point, altough i think i did not put it properly. This law is rarely used... unfortunatelly there was a public denonce, because mexican have becaem hiperssensible to this isues. So it has to be applied. It it had not be denonuces by a newparep, it would not had happen anything... Usually the small fee asked, allows the user , not only unlimited copies, but also to put the legend "aproved by the INAH"... This makes your product oficially aproved and you can charge a little more.
A few thoughts . . .
1. The Aztecs were the ones prone to reporting the high numbers. Kinda disturbing when you think about it. More important, it proves the sacrifice story wasn't just a sort of blood libel.
I won't say that it isn't possible that self-reporting yielded bad data. But, it says a great deal about the Aztecs that they bragged about doing this.
2. I'm not certain why a comparison to the Nazis' methods is meaningful. By that standard, reports of deaths in every major battle in history are wrong, because you can only kill 4,000 people a day. I'm pretty sure there are ways to kill tens of thousands of people in a single day that would have be possible in the 1400s as long as you had enough help.
3. The Tlaxcalans thing was just a joke.
4. All things being equal, it seems the locals were ready for an end to human sacrifice. You don't see much evidence that the Spanish had to struggle to end the practice once they took control of central Mexico.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Too funny.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
I think we should laugh in Mexico's face and say, "forget about it." Archaeological images are always and have always been easily available to the public.
You could also argue that those pictures are Aztec writing, so the stuff on the cups are an original written work.
Another point. Bernal Diaz del Castillo claimed he counted 100,000 skulls...in the rack where the heads of the victims were put.
first.. he was iliterate... how an iliterate people can count up to 100,000 second. in the rack of skulls (tzompanti) there were 8 rows x 8 rows, with skulls separated by one yard.
What size would have require to have 100,000 skulls?
the actual rack measured 4 x 6 meters. and the archoelogist found "only" 300 skulls....
Wouldn't the Aztecs own the rights to their images rather than the government of Mexico. Aren't the tribal Aztecs who used these types of art long in their graves? Wasn't it Spanish governments that pounded the Aztec empire into the dust? Should the US government do the same and collect money every time an American Indian's image is used? Oh boy. Now I'm messed up. Aztecs are American Indians. But that is the other kind of American. Do they count?
Who cares if they make money with an image of tenochtitlan? Just make a decent earning tax regime for foreing companies instead.
They care more about a long dead Aztec artist than about the Mexicans that are dying right now in their own time in hands of sub-human employment conditions.
Not the first time I read something like this and sadly not the last time I'm going to hear it.
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
... and are still living on a small planet orbiting Tau Ceti, and hence copyright still applies. I have to assume that the government of Mexico has some sort of power of attorney in order to be attempting to collect against these copyrights. It's not like they could possibly be attempting to twist this situation to their advantage. They are governed by a duly elected body which as we all know is proof against corruption.
Mexico is run by a culture and people primarily descended from the people who killed off the Aztecs. Yes, there are plenty of Indians in Mexico today, but they're pretty much at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The Mexican government is the heir of the Spanish Empire.
Uh, no. It's not that simple.
First off, "Aztec" is a broad and external moniker generally given to the empire dominated by the Mexica, a specific tribe. Scholars these days tend to refer to the people of Mexico widely as Nahuas, that is, people who speak Nahuatl. With that in mind, descent should not be considered simply from the Mexica, because many of the people who still exhibit a strongly indigenous culture are non-Mexica Nahuas.
Second, nobody killed off the Aztecs. That's purely a myth. Yes, many were killed, but they didn't just all die. They had children, and the children had children, etc. Through intermarriage, fornication, or rape, the Spaniards and the Nahua mixed. This process was is called mestizaje. Hence a monument in Mexico city marking a key battle reads, "Neither a victory or a defeat, but the painful birth of a mestizo people." The intention of the Spaniards had surely been to completely erase and replace Nahua culture, but they didn't succeed; they couldn't succeed. In such an encounter there tends to be some continuance with what came before, especially inasmuch as the culture before had some connections with the conquering culture that helped the new culture to take root. Mexicans today are not purely Spanish. We don't just fit-in in Spain. The irony is that the cultures that still carry on many indigenous practices, likewise, are not purely indigenous, but they often have taken on many traits from the Spaniards but apparently preserved more traditional elements than the majority of the conquered. Mexico is not as simple as saying that the Spaniards conquered, killed, and replaced; really it's more of a complex, evolutionary situation, where both sides formed something new.
Of course, some troll will probably insist that there's no native culture remaining because most don't speak Nahuatl and don't worship the sun or use the calendar, but it's not as simple as that. I recommend reading Louise Burkhart's The Slippery Earth, Viviana Diaz Balsera's The Pyramid Under the Cross, or pretty much anything by Jaime Lara.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
Then why isn't the Mexican government making that kind of claim?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
As reference... Bernal diaz del Castillo reported the rack of skulls of Tlatelolco had 100 thousand skull. Archeologist found 300.. quite a diference. The people had to be sacrifice in the main temple., there is not much space there. The city had about 70 thousand people... not all warriors. so they could not handle so much prisioners... and archeologist have not found evidence of those numbers... this only lead to a conclusion... war propaganda...to inflate their victories...
Actually it took about 70 years to end human sacrifice... The aztec (meshica) were not the only one to do it..
And probalby it had more to do with the colapse of mesoamerican civilization due to the hight toll of the epidemies. In 70 years the population of mesoamerica went from 15 million to 2.5 million.
It's a little more tricky in the USA, we just have so damn many congressmen. ^_^
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Having poor conditions or ~5 bucks a day(~51 pesos) does not mean we are not civilized. Now, you are so happy with your government? We are happy we our government. Why? Because they don't hide us stuff! They don't censor us!(With some exceptions like paedophiles stuff) Now he problem is that the History and Anthropology Department own all rights to it. And Mexican government don't take lightly that other countries(Being companies or individuals) use any cultural material for making money. I had myself made a short video and there was no problem!
Yeah. Maybe that whole tourism thing isn't working out for them and they need some bad press to calm it down a bit...
... However, the Vedic knowledge was in its day a library about every type of field, including manuals on how to pilot aircrafts and make the fuel. However, the records are sadly too obtuse / derived orally from other sources, so are not really practical in its present shape. However, just the fact they have these records, signify this is not the first time earth have had technically advanced civilisations, even though the original records about them have been lost...
The fundamental problem was that India out sourced all its tech support to the Arabs and manufacturing to the Greeks in those Vedic times and switched from manufacturing economy to service economy. Thus it eventually lost its technological edge and then its military edge and then eventually petered out. All it had left was those manuals.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In most countries which have copyright laws it extends only 50 or so years after the author dies.
Well, maybe, but this is a fairly recent innovation in copyright law. It dates back to the 1920s. And in many countries (especially the US), there's been a pattern of extending the expiration date when things produced in the 1920s are about to become public domain. So in the US, copyright is now effectively perpetual.
But this isn't anything new, either. If you dig into the origins of copyright law, you'll find it in medieval laws that were designed to control printing of the Bible and other religious works. These laws had no expiration dates at all. They were purely to control publication of socially important documents, so that all the income went to a small number of publishers approved by the church and crown.
One could argue that the US has returned to this sort of copyright, with the change that the dominant religion is now The Market. This explains why modern copyright deals solely with copying anything that is marketable.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
They can set what rules they like as a condition of entry, and kick you out if you refuse.
But if you happen to get an image through whatever means - of if even they make an image of a public domain work - it's legal (in the US at least) to copy that. See the recent case involving Wikipedia and some British gallery.
On another note, surely it's mad here that we're not just talking about a specific image, but the concept of an Aztec image, which copyright surely doesn't apply to at all? You can't copyright ideas, or your culture or history.
The RIAA's behavior demonstrates that copyright has nothing to do with remunerating the original authors.
Nothing much new here. The original copyright laws, more than a thousand years back, dealt with copying by scribes, and the authors of the documents (the Bible, Koran, etc) had been dead for centuries.
Copyright has always been about control of sales, to limit the profit to a small number of officially-approved publishers. The main difference is that now, the approved publishers are determined by the owner of the copyright, which is a commodity that's for sale. In the original copyright, the legal publisher of sacred works was determined by the people in power (the king or prince or bishop or whoever), and presumably chosen mostly on the basis of bribes and kickbacks.
Come to think of it, that's not so different than how the modern copyright laws are being made right now. We just say "campaign contributions" rather than "bribes and kickbacks".
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Better yet, wait until China sues Japan for using it's HanZi in the first place!
Does Mexico own the symbols? Considering they were created before there was a state of Mexico I doubt it. Considering the symbols are a language - and I don't think an established (even if it's dead) can be copyrighted. Please I don't copyrights expire after like 80 years? Wow, I know Mexico is desperate for cash - but really, what do they think they will get? 10 million? What's 10 million going to do for a freakign COUNTRY.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Which seems to imply, to my mind, that this isn't the matter of specific photographs being copied, but rather that the Mexican government considers any photographs of these artefacts/sites to be the intellectual property of Mexico.
So if I go to mexico, and take pictures - do I have to pay fees for each picture?
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Mexico can send all of their unskilled and illiterate people to the U.S. to be educated, receive free health care and government benefits, and Star Bucks can use the stupid Aztec images.
Seems fair to me.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
One thing to take note is that Mexico has different ideas concerning intellectual property. The national emblem for example is ruled by a strict code that does not let allow it to be reproduced for anything other than governmental/national use. The Mexican flag, is similarly protected, it cannot be printed on shirts, or underwear or on guitars like the American flag can. I am not a specialist, but taking these to cases' examples I can imagine a similar train of thought that might lead to protection not necessarily a copyright or I.P. law that restricts the use of such national emblems. Mexican identity is deeply rooted in both catholic(Spanish) and native traditions, national symbols are not so easy to define.
The article doesn't say what kind of claim the Mexican government is making.
It doesn't go one way or the other.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Great. So you're saying that compared with the Nazis, the Aztecs were no mass murderers. Sort of a Godwin version of "damning with faint praise" if you ask me.
For example, if somebody plays the Mexican national anthem publicly in the US you have to pay royalties to some American company that registered the music without anybody's approval. Same for the image of Guadalupe's Virgin Mary, you have to pay royalties to some Chinese go-getter that registered the image outside of Mexico. It's crazy.
I wonder if Google has paid up?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
People speak Nahua every day. There are surviving speakers, and languages such as O'Odham and Hopi are in the same family. Heck, there is a restaurant chain in the US that uses Nahua in their name, "Taco Bell."
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so- Zaphod beeblebrox
The real news about this story is that a post on Idle led to over 200 comments!
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
... and are still living on a small planet orbiting Tau Ceti, and hence copyright still applies.
Indeed, you've pointed out a serious problem with copyright being at minimum author's lifetime. Not just longevity, cryogenics(*), or even immortality, but the problem of relativistic travel being able to extend copyright over one's works far far beyond the lifetimes of one's peers. (Though, frankly, the current terms of copyright seem to have the goal of denying their use by anyone who knew of you when you were alive to use your works for free.)
(*) In the US at least, to be cryogenically frozen you must first be legally dead, so that one problem solved.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Let's ask the Aztecs, techs...
This is idle.slashdot, after all
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Acording to the aztec, their Tlatoani Ahuizotl, persoally killed 84,400 prisioners in four days using a stone knife...
For copyright violations? Harsh...
Wait till you see the legislation the RIAA's got up their sleeves...
Stop! Dremel time!
Which is why most companies grease palms on both sides of the aisle and back committee heads more than others.
Nice post. If I had any mod points atm, and if you wern't already at 5, I'd mod you up.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
It seems to me that those of us with vacation pictures to Mexico should start posting them on the internet with a "buy me now" link to shutterfly (or what have you). If Mexico is going to be that overly possessive just to get 250$, then it should probably realize that millions of people a year take pictures and share them with friends... and even sell them if they are good enough at photography / art.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wish I could mod you up one. As I recall, the current government overthrew the prior government, I'm thinking Ownership by Conquest, which was a stable practice in the region for thousands of years, in what is now Central America. Maybe a lawyer representing the Aztec Triad Alliance is going to step forward?
I just had a second thought, could it be that the Mexican Drug Lords are finding more money in Litigation, than being a Mule for Columbia?
I'm sorry Mexico, your copyright expired in 1492.
If the image belongs to anyone, it's not Mexico, but the Nahua http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahua_peoples .
This is what happens when the winners write the history, and it says "they were wiped out" but they weren't wiped out.
Hopefully Starbucks will get the jump on Mexico and pay the Nahua. And hopefully Mexico won't decide to finish the job like they've been doing with the Maya in Chiapas.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Yesterday I saw this in a newspaper here in Mexico and at first it sounded absurd to me, but I think/read that what happened it's that Starbucks used images taken/used by the INAH not ones that were taken for them, so the INAH wants Starbucks to pay for the use of the images, not because the images are aztec/teotihuacanas but because these particular images are owned by the INAH.
Wait, so if I understand you correctly, we are talking about $250 US per image. I have no idea how many images but let's just say $10,000 worth, or 40 different images.
Wouldn't it just be cheaper for starbucks to pay the $10K to Mexico than to go through all the trouble of hiring lawyers and stuff to fight this?
Presumably if you are selling widgets with the images AND you expect to do business in Mexico, you would. If not, you don't have to.
"first.. he was iliterate... how an iliterate people can count up to 100,000"
duh, pretty easily. 1, two, seven, capital A, smiley face, beer, dragonfly, 100,000.
Counting's not rocket surgery.
See, many years ago, before a little coffee shop turned into this machination of "good coffee," they had wondered into the lands of Coatepec, Veracruz, Mexico. And while there they tasted some of the most "premium" coffee in the world. You see, Coatepec has very unique attributes which lend itself to growing coffee. Thus they produce(d) some of the worlds "best" coffee.
So while Starbucks was there and liking what they tasted, they were also in many other places trying "premium" coffee. So they ended up getting their supply from elsewhere. Now if you know anything about Mexico, their Pyramids and Gods, you'll know that they're not something to be taken lightly! So of course, Coatepec means something like the snake from the hill/mountain.... And thus they're now taking their revenge on Starbucks for not buying their coffee!*
I actually spent some time there and I found out about this and was like o rly? And sure enough they showed me the "gifts" they had received from star bucks, a company from some placed called Seattle. It was actually pretty cool because they were still in their original packaging and branded with starbucks logos! So that's how I know about 1/2 the of the story. The other half I just cobbled up from what the general public believes to be true!
* Maybe about 1/2 of this story is 80% accurate - no guarantees
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
Your assertion that "The Mexican government is the heir of the Spanish Empire" is so monumentally ignorant that does not deserve any further comment.
It's not ignorant at all, and does deserve further comment. It's just as valid as saying that the US government is the heir of the British Empire. Granted in both cases, neither is heir to the empire, but heir of the empire.
Consider this: Spain was in charge, established a government, and provided an infrastructure to Mexico, much as the British did in what's now the USA. The USA claimed independence in 1776; Mexico not too much later, in 1810. In neither case were the governments restored to that of the indiginous populations. Infrastructure and the rule of law pretty much continued as it did. In both Mexico and the United States it took a couple of tries to get it right (multiple constitutions or articles of confederation), but in the end, the governments are very much the heirs of their predecessors.
--Jim (me)
Acording to the aztec, their Tlatoani Ahuizotl, persoally killed 84,400 prisioners in four days using a stone knife...
However, most experts consider these numbers to be overstated.mos historia asume the aztec put a few extra zeroes as propaganda...
I suspect merely computational error. Have you ever tried to multiply MXXIII by XXIV in Roman numerals alone? And they didn't even have that.
So they want money for art created BEFORE the government even existed. I can see the lawyers pointing out that those artists were not citizens of the current government.
Say, will they attempt to get royalties on the images of the Alamo?
Place nail here >+
Yes, Starbuck had already agreed to pay... If i remember the series would have about 10 momuments.. i think Starbuck would have prefer to pay before all this blow out.... Really is not a very high amount, i guess they pay much more for the photographs... but it was a mexian newspaper that blow this issue out of proporcions...
try this... how many skulls are here?
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jacklee/London/images_Italy/20030924-Rome-CimiterodeiCappuccini-CryptofSkulls.jpg
Why is anyone seriously discussing this? It's one of the looniest claims I have heard for a long time. The insane and inane fascination with copyright has been driven by idiotic legislation and the demands of greedy corporations. If someone or some country can claim copyright over Aztec images, how about pre-historic cave drawings? Get a life everyone!
Mexico didn't even exist at the time. How can they claim copyright?
Wait until they hit up Emmerich for aa cut of the "2012" profits
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
By some strange coincidence Texas seceded from the (then) Spanish colony of Mexico right after the Spanish abolished slavery!
That is the part of "the Alamo" that Texans would rather forget!
In the three hundred years of aztec ruling, the amount of deaths by sacrifice was lower than the death toll in just one day on hiroshima.
who is the mass murder?
A country cannot lay claim to an image dominated by the common conscience. Next, Egypt will want the US to pay tax on the Pyramid on the back on our Money!
Perposturous!
Cheers, - Alex.
Is the coffee from Mexico?
You may have missed this but I strongly suspect that the user you're responding to is not a native English speaker.
"it's up to the copyright owner themselves to make the complaint. How on earth does a government "inherit" copyright just because the original owner was from their country?"
I was thinking that too. Does the US own Indians? Does Italy own everything Greek or Roman?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Apparently fifty cent (the rapper) wanted 'mad flow'
He got 'crazy diarrhea'
When this site http://www.hanzismatter.com/ published the picture and translation his lawyers sued.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'